2018-02-07 15:24:19 +00:00
|
|
|
# Chapter 2 (Array-based lists)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These data structures have common advantages and limitations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* constant-time access
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* resizing the array adds potentially non-trivial complexity, both in time and
|
|
|
|
storage, as a new array generally must be created and the old array copied
|
|
|
|
over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* arrays aren't dynamic, which means inserting or deleting in the middle of an
|
|
|
|
array requires shifting all the following elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With some careful management, the additional *amortised* complexity added by
|
2018-02-08 16:38:06 +00:00
|
|
|
resizing isn't too bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Array stack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Uses backing array *a*.
|
|
|
|
* Typically, the array will be larger than necessary, so an element *n* is
|
|
|
|
used to track the actual number of elements stored in the stack.
|
2018-02-20 18:09:12 +00:00
|
|
|
* Add and remove requires shifting all the elements after i (O(n - i)
|
|
|
|
complexity), ignoring potential calls to resize
|
|
|
|
* Resizing is triggered when we run out of room in an add or when a remove
|
|
|
|
brings us to the point where the array is more than 3n elements
|
|
|
|
* Resizing creates a new array of size 2n and copies all the elements over;
|
|
|
|
this then has complexity O(n).
|
|
|
|
* The analysis of add and remove didn't consider cost of resize.
|
|
|
|
* An amortised analysis is done instead that considers the cost of all calls
|
|
|
|
to add and remove, given a sequence of *m* calls to either.
|
2018-02-21 17:04:08 +00:00
|
|
|
* **Lemma**: if an empty ArrayStack is created and any sequence of *m* >= 1
|
|
|
|
calls to add and remove are performed, the total time spent in calls to
|
|
|
|
resize is O(m).
|
|
|
|
* Optimisations (FastArrayStack): using memcpy or std::copy to copy blocks of
|
|
|
|
data, not one element at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ArrayQueue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ArrayStack is a bad implementation for a FIFO queue; either add or remove
|
|
|
|
must work from the head with index = 0, which means all calls to that
|
|
|
|
method will result in running time of O(n).
|
|
|
|
* We could do this with an infinite array, using an index into the head (*j*)
|
|
|
|
and the size of the backing array. We don't have an infinite array, so we'll
|
|
|
|
have to use modular arithmetic with a finite stack.
|
|
|
|
* **Theorem**: Ignoring the cost of calls to resize, an ArrayQueue supports the
|
|
|
|
operations add and remove in O(1) per operation. Beginning with an empty
|
|
|
|
ArrayQueue, any sequence of m add/remove operations will result in a total
|
|
|
|
of O(m) time resizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## ArrayDeque
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Implementation of adding and removing from both ends using the same circular
|
|
|
|
buffer technique.
|
|
|
|
* add/remove check whether their index is before or after the halfway point and
|
|
|
|
shift from there as a performance benefit.
|
|
|
|
* **Theorem**: Ignoring the cost of calls to resize, an ArrayDeque supports
|
|
|
|
set/get in time O(1) time per operation, and add/remove in O(1+min(i, n-1))
|
|
|
|
time per operation. Beginning with an empty ArrayDeque, performing any
|
|
|
|
sequence of m operations results in a total of O(m) time resizing.
|